The last few days were marked by worrisome signals coming from the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova, following expositions that occurred in different parts of the region. The experts invited to IPN’s public debate “Real situation and useful reaction of Moldovan society to provocations around Transnistrian region” discussed the reasons, actors and possible developments, the danger of engaging Moldova in the war taking place in the neighborhood and society’s attitude to these.
Igor Boțan, the standing expert of IPN’s project, said that an order to conscript men younger than 55 for military exercises was issued in Transnistrian on April 21. It was presumed that those who will be selected will fill the ranks of the peacekeeping forces in Transnistria. “Some say this is mobilization, while others say this is an ordinary measure taken in Transnistria four times a year. On April 25, the building of the so-called security ministry (MGB) in central Tiraspol was attacked with grenade launchers. Two powerful radio emitters were destroyed in Mayak village the next day and gunfire was later reported at a military unit in Parcani and at the airport in Tiraspol. It should be noted that on April 26, the Russian troops launched a rocket attack on Odessa region and the railway bridge that unites Odessa and southern Bessarabia was partially destroyed,” he stated.
According to Igor Boțan, there are three versions for all these incidents. The Ukrainians version says the provocations were staged by Russian intelligence services to generate tensions in western Ukraine and to block the Ukrainian military forces in this region. The goal was “to pulverize the Ukrainian forces”. The Russian version that is supported by Transnistria says that it is a provocation planned by Ukrainians to engage Moldova in the conflict. There is the Moldovan version saying that this is settling of an old score between groups in Transnistria. The citizens in Moldova had different emotional reactions and they realize that the political situation is unstable and the authoritarian regimes that tend to become dictatorial claim particular things.
The expert noted the emotional and rational factors should be combined in the assessment of the situation as the people will be unable to take steps to defend their homeland without emotions, while reason is needed to realize the interests of those who initiated the war.
Nicolai Tsveatkov, deputy director of the Reintegration Policies Bureau, said it may seem that the Bureau exceeds its authority and power, but it is not within its remit to deal with military and national security risks. “However, given that it goes to the Transnistrian region that is in the process of reintegration with the Republic of Moldova, the Bureau shows increased interest in its activity. The Bureau is a subdivision of the Satiate Chancellery. It is a bureaucratic institution that deals with the maintaining and coordination of elements related to the reintegration policy, including the maintaining of a dialogue with representatives of the de facto authorities of the Transnistrian region. But not all the events that happen in the Transnistrian region, especially those related to the Russian military forces staying there, are within the Bureau’s remit. In the region, there are military forces and these are related to the Moldovan-Russian relations, but not directly to the Transnistrian settlement process. These processes should be divided,” he stated.
As to the latest events in the Transnistrian region, Nicolai Tsveatkov said they are permanently in touch with other institutions and try to find out more details, but the Bureau is unable to conduct examinations on the spot. Some of the things became known by unofficial ways and they cannot say exactly what happened in the region. The official position of the Bureau is that the institution is concerned about the incident that occurred in Tiraspol and considers that this was aimed at creating preconditions for making tenser the security situation in the Transnistrian region that is not controlled by the constitutional authorities. It calls for calmness and notes that it is monitoring the developments in this case together with the responsible national authorities.
Vadim Pistrinciuc, executive director of the Institute for Strategic Policies and Initiatives, said there are three groups of positions on the situation in the Transnistrian region. The Ukrainian position says that Transnistria is a source of insecurity and particular attacks of Russian military troops can start from there. This is not something new. Moldova has permanently said that the Russian military presence in the region is rather a matter of insecurity than of security. The second group is that of Russian reactions that are more diplomatic and that suggest that they do not intend to use the troops staying in Transnistria. The third group of reactions is that of European institutions that welcome the position of Moldova, which says that it is neutral, but is yet ready to cope with the security challenges and this is a change of rhetoric.
Vadim Pistrinciuc considers Ukraine is defending its home and looks at Transnistria as at an unstable zone that should be neutralized, but it does not intend to provoke something in Transnistria, if only to transmit some signals. “Not even the Transnistrians know what is happening in Transnistria and I think the administration there does not have significant military capacities to influence the war. In fact, the administrative bodies there do not want to become involved in the armed conflict as this would mean the region will become empty, but it already experiences very big economic and demographic difficulties.
Vadim Pistrinciuc noted the war is a catastrophe and this is the first war with global access to information and disinformation as millions of people are instantaneous observers of the developments.
The public debate titled “Real situation and useful reaction of Moldovan society to provocations around Transnistrian region” was the 241th installment of IPN’s project “Developing Political Culture through Public Debates” that is supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
